Fox & Friends embraces falsehood undermining “hushed up” EPA report

In an interview with Alan Carlin, co-author of an internal EPA document that the agency allegedly -- in Steve Doocy's words -- “hushed up,” Fox & Friends advanced the document's false claim that, as Doocy put it, “for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping.”

During a June 30 Fox & Friends interview with Alan Carlin, the co-author of an internal Environmental Protection Agency document that the agency allegedly, in co-host Steve Doocy's words, “hushed up,” Doocy advanced the document's false claim that, as he put it, “for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping.” In fact, Doocy's claim is simply not true. In addition, during the interview, co-host Gretchen Carlson asserted that Carlin is a “scientist,” and Doocy called Carlin a “man of science.” However, the EPA has reportedly said in a statement that "[t]he individual in question [Carlin] is not a scientist." That statement was included in a June 29 FoxNews.com article about Carlin's report.

During the segment, Carlson told Carlin, "[M]ost of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years." Similarly, Doocy said to Carlin, “You're a man of science, you're just presenting the facts as you see them, and yet, it looks like your bosses were involved in political interference.”

However, the June 29 FoxNews.com article about the controversy stated that "[a]n EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday [June 29] that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included 'no original research' in his report." The article also quoted an official statement from the EPA that included a similar claim about Carlin:

The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place.

“Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making,” the statement said. “The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding.”

Likewise, a June 26 CBSNews.com article reported that "[t]he EPA ... said in its statement: 'The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.' "

While Carlson read a statement from the EPA during the Fox & Friends segment, it did not address the question of whether the EPA considered him a “scientist.”

According to his employee profile, Carlin is a Senior Operations Research Analyst at EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a B.S. in physics from the California Institute of Technology.

Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a June 26 RealClimate.org post that in reading the internal EPA document that Carlin co-authored, "[o]ne can see a number of basic flaws [in its main points]; the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution."

From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: Welcome back. As Congress debated energy legislation just last week, a disturbing story was quietly spreading about an internal report at the EPA that had to be used or hushed -- what is the word? Hushed, before anyone heard about it. The report debunked the science behind global warming, and its conclusions proved so inconvenient that that report was shelved.

CARLSON: All right, so we have the person who wrote this report, Alan Carlin, a researcher at the EPA and the author of that controversial report. He joins us live this morning from D.C. Good morning to you, Mr. Carlin.

CARLIN: Good morning.

CARLSON: All right, so most of us are not scientists. You are. You've worked for the EPA for 38 years. Tell us in a nutshell what your report said this spring.

CARLIN: The most important finding was that EPA, in my view, needed to look at the science behind global warming and not depend on reports issued by the United Nations, which is what they were thinking of doing and have done.

DOOCY: And, in fact, it's problematic because for the last 11 years, temperatures had been dropping. So your report pretty much turned the whole global warming debate on its head. And what happened to your report? I understand it was hushed up.

CARLIN: My supervisor decided not to forward it to the group within EPA who had the responsibility for preparing a overall report which would guide EPA on whether to find that the emission of global warming gases would be something that EPA should regulate.

CARLSON: Right. And why should Americans care about that? Because they just passed cap and trade Friday night, at least the House did, and maybe this report could have changed some of those congressmen and women's minds. Here's the email from your supervisor after you submitted the report. It's unbelievable.

It says this: “The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

There's something illegal about that, is there not, sir?

CARLIN: I have no idea, but it does indicate that at least my supervisor did not want to raise these issues to the groups within EPA that do have the responsibility for preparing the overall report.

DOOCY: Well, look, here you are. You're a man of science, you're just presenting the facts as you see them, and yet, it looks like your bosses were involved in political interference. “We're going to -- we're not going to present Alan's findings because it's not helpful to the administration's argument.”

CARLIN: You have just read the really important email, and I think it speaks for itself.

CARLSON: All right, let's take a look at what the EPA is now responding to -- because, by the way, they didn't want these emails to get out. Somebody anonymously sent these emails to a newspaper. Here's what the EPA says.

“Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making. These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an agency review was conducted.”

That's a bunch of gobbledygook that I don't even really get, other than they're saying that your report was considered. Do you agree with that?

CARLIN: All that I know was that I was told that it was not forwarded to the people working on the report. What actually happened is not known to me.

DOOCY: Yeah. Since this story hit the fan, everything OK at work back at the EPA, Alan?

CARLIN: Things are a little strained --

DOOCY: Yeah.

CARLIN: -- but as of last night, I did still have a job.

CARLSON: All right. Well, how dare you for sticking to your convictions, Alan. I'm joking. Alan Carlin, research analyst, author of the report, 38-year veteran at the EPA, thanks for sharing your mind-blowing story with us this morning.

DOOCY: And thanks, Alan. And a scientific point of view that we don't hear much these days about the globe is cooling. Who knew?